RB Rankings

[retailguy]

You don't think "top 10" is elite? You don't think "7th" in yards is elite? You don't think his YPC is "elite" as top three of the top 7?

My point is that Grant's stats are better than he is, and we as fans, put on the homer glasses and think he's better than he is.

I'm happy with the guy, but won't miss him when it's time to move on. If you recall, I was very disappointed when Green left. You won't see a repeat when Grant moves on.

So...if Grant doesn't get credit for his "elite" stats, I suppose you think the O-line is elite? Who is wearing the funny glasses here? Maybe if you weren't putting on the Eyore glasses you would just give the guy the credit he deserves...

Well, I guess it could only be "me" who says they guy is "good enough" and gets criticized. Who'd a thunk it?

The sad part is that I like Ryan Grant. Pretty much always have. Gave Ted credit during the "breakout" season that his value was excellent. Even liked how Ted handled the "contract holdout".

I can't get no respect. :P

The OL, ought not suck, but we'll see. If they're "elite", it's on the bad side.

[packerbacker1234]

Grant is always an interesting case. If he was a rookie and had these stats over his first 3 seasons, we would be talking about "how great he is" and "how you couldn't expect much better from a 1st round drafted RB"

ANd here many pundits are saying there is a reason he went undrafted, and it shows in GB. I don't really get it - 95% of 1st rounders are complete busts, yet here is this undrafted RB who is consistently putting up top 10 stats year in and year out, doesn't turn it over, and, running wise, is an absolute PERFECT fit for a pass heavy team. Our team is built around our WR's and AR - we are going to be a 60 - 40 pass team for a long, long time. So, we don't need a dominate runner like AP, or even a flashy guy like Bush - we need a guy who runs hard, gets the job done, and doesn't give the other team the ball.

We have that. How long he lasts is unknown. 2, 3, 4 years? Who knows, but I seriously have no real complaints. Maybe he isn't the best at catching the ball, but thats what the 3rd down back is for. Unfortunately, we just haven't been able to find a true 3rd down back yet.

I loved Green in that he was a game changer, but he had the same flaw AP does - fumbling the ball. I would take grant over either, honestly, if it's a pass heavy offense. All you need is for a guy to get it done and not turn it over - not a guy who can bust 150 in any game but may fumble it on a key drive.

Just saying, I love Green, I really like AP, but in a passing offense I prefer Grant the runner, and Green on 3rd downs for screens.

[sharpe1027]

Well, I guess it could only be "me" who says they guy is "good enough" and gets criticized. Who'd a thunk it?

The sad part is that I like Ryan Grant. Pretty much always have. Gave Ted credit during the "breakout" season that his value was excellent. Even liked how Ted handled the "contract holdout".

I can't get no respect. :P

The OL, ought not suck, but we'll see. If they're "elite", it's on the bad side.

You didn't get criticized because of who you are, nor did you get criticized for saying Grant was "good enough."

You argued that Grant's states were elite, and then you disagreed that Grant was elite. If Grant is not as good as his stats, and the OLine wasn't good, did he just get lucky or something? What measurement should we use instead? How "flashy" he looks? How many "highlights" he creates? IDK, maybe to you Grant doesn't look like he is making great plays, but I see a huge difference when anyone else is put back there.

[packerbacker1234]

Well, I guess it could only be "me" who says they guy is "good enough" and gets criticized. Who'd a thunk it?

The sad part is that I like Ryan Grant. Pretty much always have. Gave Ted credit during the "breakout" season that his value was excellent. Even liked how Ted handled the "contract holdout".

I can't get no respect. :P

The OL, ought not suck, but we'll see. If they're "elite", it's on the bad side.

You didn't get criticized because of who you are, nor did you get criticized for saying Grant was "good enough."

You argued that Grant's states were elite, and then you disagreed that Grant was elite. If Grant is not as good as his stats, and the OLine wasn't good, did he just get lucky or something? What measurement should we use instead? How "flashy" he looks? How many "highlights" he creates? IDK, maybe to you Grant doesn't look like he is making great plays, but I sure as hell see a huge difference when anyone else is put back there.

Exactly. I get that even whats his name looks alright at tiems (jackson) and that Green, last year, looked good in his limited time (in terms of driving the pile, getting tough yards) - but then grant would come back on the field and just look better... by a lot. Grant runs harder when he is being pushed, at least, that was the case last season. He was having an okay year, then Green came and it seemed to really influence Grant to fight for more yards. That can happen when you have a gbp hall of famer playing behind you. Thats a direct influence on your play, because now expectations get razed, or this old future HoF Packer is going to come in for the playoff run and show you how it's done.

Point is, Grant is pretty damn good. Elite? Well he isn't as good as the best of the best, or even in that conversation, but he is just on the outside in terms of running.

He makes very few mistakes, runs up field, doesn't turn it over, and is a lock for 1200 to 1400 yards every season, and thats on a team that primarily throws the ball.

Yes, guys like Ray Rice, a panther RB, Chris Johnson - they are always going to have more yards, because they are required to carry the offense. In GB - that burden isn't on Grant.

[retailguy]

Well, I guess it could only be "me" who says they guy is "good enough" and gets criticized. Who'd a thunk it?

The sad part is that I like Ryan Grant. Pretty much always have. Gave Ted credit during the "breakout" season that his value was excellent. Even liked how Ted handled the "contract holdout".

I can't get no respect. :P

The OL, ought not suck, but we'll see. If they're "elite", it's on the bad side.

You didn't get criticized because of who you are, nor did you get criticized for saying Grant was "good enough."

You argued that Grant's states were elite, and then you disagreed that Grant was elite. If Grant is not as good as his stats, and the OLine wasn't good, did he just get lucky or something? What measurement should we use instead? How "flashy" he looks? How many "highlights" he creates? IDK, maybe to you Grant doesn't look like he is making great plays, but I see a huge difference when anyone else is put back there.

I think this is the key. I agree with that statement, but probably not for the same reasons you do. I see it more as an indictment of our back up runners than proof that Grant is as good as his stats.

I happen to believe that the stats are better than Grant because I believe in the "system" (I spent a long time hating on it, so I guess that's growth for me). I think you could plug a bunch of runners in the NFL into Grant's position and keep the stats without keeping Grant. Those "bunch of runners" just don't play for the Packers today.

I'm very hopeful that Starks is the next guy. We'll see.

[retailguy]

Let me expound on my point above.

McCarthy's running system is designed to "exploit" a hole on a given play. The runner is responsible to identify "where" the hole is, make a cut, and go. If the hole isn't here, it's there, find it and hit it. Two looks, hit the best hole and go. More often then not, that works, and Grant does that well.

That philosophy isn't dependent on a "steller line" to work. My complaint with the OL has always been that they aren't "consistent". I've never really faulted the "talent" of any of them. Even Colledge, whom I now despise, and believe is destined to be the manager of a Dairy Queen, has talent. He can't display that talent "consistently" (well for more than 1/2 of a season which he did in 2008).

These guys on the OL do not play well TOGETHER. It doesn't take all of them playing well TOGETHER to have a successful running attack. It just takes the ONE GUY ON ONE PLAY who is supposed to open one of the two holes that Grant has to hit. These guys can do that, sporadically, but not consistently.

There seems to be an issue in this forum to identify WHY the line doesn't play well. That's not my problem. The fact that you can't see my complaints aren't "mutually exclusive" isn't my problem either. You saw the first 8 games in 2009, what is to say that won't happen again? We've got a 3 year track record now. We have the talent to NOT play that way, as we've also proven in the last 8 games for the past 3 years. If this OL doesn't improve on the 1st 8 games this season, it will be just a crying shame. This team has few other holes, and none come close to glaring.

Grant's ability to "see the hole" and just run isn't unique. Why the other backups struggle with it, I'll never understand. Jackson is the only back on the roster that can actually break a tackle. If he could just see the damn hole, he'd be special, but he can't. I don't understand it. My ONLY indictment of Grant is that he can't elude tackles very well. Usually, if you get a hand on him, he's done. One cut and done. That's what McCarthy wants, and that's what he's got with Grant. Grant can never be elite until he can break tackles on a semi consistent basis, AND catches the damn ball.

[sharpe1027]

Grant can never be elite until he can break tackles on a semi consistent basis, AND catches the damn ball.

That is a legitimate complaint. I think, however, that you could easily poke holes in pretty much every RB. Basically, we just place different value on Grant's positives and negatives.

As far as the scheme goes, you say that it takes ONE GUY ON ONE PLAY to open holes and I say can take ONE GUY ON ONE PLAY to ruin the play. I can buy some of it, but I think Grant makes the line look good, rather than the other way around.

Sorry about asking for clarification on some of your arguments. I wasn't sure what you were thinking, but as you said that's my problem.

[Patler]

My point is that Grant's stats are better than he is, and we as fans, put on the homer glasses and think he's better than he is.

Grant's stats are not better than he is, they are what he is. The Packers could be a heck of a lot worse off than they are with Grant.

I think Packer fans were spoiled by Ahman Green. He ran with incredible determination and power, yet was fast enough to outrun anyone. He was a tremendous blocker, and great as a receiver out of the backfield. The only draw back, which I thought was overblown somewhat, was his tendency to fumble.

I always felt Green was somewhat under appreciated. It is rare that a back combines all aspects of his position as well as Green did. There are others who ran as well or better, and caught the ball as well or better; but seldom did they combine power with speed like Green, or block as willingly or as well as Green.

From having been spoiled by watching Green in his prime, too many fans expect the same from Grant. They nitpick his deficiencies, but very, very few backs are as complete as Green was. To expect the same from Grant is unrealistic.

[Patler]

I think you could plug a bunch of runners in the NFL into Grant's position and keep the stats without keeping Grant. Those "bunch of runners" just don't play for the Packers today.

Nor have they played for the Packers at anytime in the last three seasons. Three years ago the running game was a mess until Grant was given the chance; and since then no one has been too close to Grant in reliability and performance.

[retailguy]

I don't think that Grant is comparable to Green. Different backs for different schemes.

My point is that I believe you could "plug in" a bunch of guys and not suffer much, if any loss in production. As you said, it wasn't that way with Green. Isn't that way with Peterson, or Johnson, or the other "elite" backs.

But lets face it, Denver plugged in a fullback for over 1,000 yards one year, and plugged in about six or seven backs (Including Davis). Clearly that was the "scheme" or the "coaching" and not the player. None have done as well elsewhere, but plenty have done "as well" there.

Again - I LIKE GRANT. I just don't love him.

[retailguy]

Sorry about asking for clarification on some of your arguments. I wasn't sure what you were thinking, but as you said that's my problem.

Apologies for mis-understanding the tone of your earlier post. It's been pretty judgmental in here for the past 3 seasons...

[falco]

More than anything else, Grant is a perfect fit for our offense. Sort of reminds me of how whats-his-name was for the Colts a few years back.

[Patler]

My point is that I believe you could "plug in" a bunch of guys and not suffer much, if any loss in production. As you said, it wasn't that way with Green. Isn't that way with Peterson, or Johnson, or the other "elite" backs.

Might be a bit of homerism on my part, but I would have taken Ahman Green in his prime over Adrian Peterson, without hesitation. Peterson MIGHT be a better runner, but I'm not completely convinced of it. He is not the receiver Green was, but has improved. He is quite bad as a blocker, and he fumbles a lot more frequently than Green did, (20/1000 vs 37/2500)

[sharpe1027]

I don't think that Grant is comparable to Green. Different backs for different schemes.

My point is that I believe you could "plug in" a bunch of guys and not suffer much, if any loss in production. As you said, it wasn't that way with Green. Isn't that way with Peterson, or Johnson, or the other "elite" backs.

But lets face it, Denver plugged in a fullback for over 1,000 yards one year, and plugged in about six or seven backs (Including Davis). Clearly that was the "scheme" or the "coaching" and not the player. None have done as well elsewhere, but plenty have done "as well" there.

Again - I LIKE GRANT. I just don't love him.

Maybe, but I haven't seen much to make me believe that the Packers are able to replicate what Denver had. So far, nobody has been able to do much besides Grant. There's no sure way to answer this, but there's no doubt at least some of his success is due to the scheme. Of course, we could make similar arguments for other backs. For example, C. Benson was running behind a Oline that was mauling people.

[Scott Campbell]

My point is that I believe you could "plug in" a bunch of guys and not suffer much, if any loss in production. As you said, it wasn't that way with Green. Isn't that way with Peterson, or Johnson, or the other "elite" backs.

Might be a bit of homerism on my part, but I would have taken Ahman Green in his prime over Adrian Peterson, without hesitation. Peterson MIGHT be a better runner, but I'm not completely convinced of it. He is not the receiver Green was, but has improved. He is quite bad as a blocker, and he fumbles a lot more frequently than Green did, (20/1000 vs 37/2500)

Loved Ahman, but I'd take Peterson in a heartbeat.